Michael R. Cannon

Michael Cannon is an attorney with 30 years of experience serving as the Executive Vice Chancellor & General Counsel of a nationally prominent research university; representing an array of universities and colleges as the founding member of the higher education practice at a global law firm; and providing management consulting services to the president and executive leadership of an East Coast research university and academic medical center.  He earned his J.D. from Yale Law School and his A.B. degree in Economics from Washington University in 1973.  He also received a B. Litt. in Politics from Oxford University which he attended on a Rhodes Scholarship awarded in 1973.  

Prior to his entry into the world of higher education executive leadership, Mr. Cannon was a partner in the Washington, DC law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding with a general commercial law counseling and litigation practice and a particular emphasis on insurance contract litigation, counseling and negotiation.  Before his career in private practice, Cannon served as a federal prosecutor of public official corruption cases with the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section. 

Michael Cannon then served for over 23 years as Executive Vice Chancellor & General Counsel at Washington University in St. Louis where, among other leadership roles, he was the chief legal officer to the Board of Trustees and Chancellor. In that capacity he and the legal and risk management departments he oversaw were responsible for providing legal representation and counsel to all other academic and administrative components of the University, including the School of Medicine and its faculty practice plan. At various points in that period, Mr. Cannon also assumed overall management responsibility and budget authority for the University’s Human Resources and Environmental Health Departments.  Most important, he also served as a member of the University’s senior executive management team advising the Chancellor on the full range of significant administrative, budgetary and programmatic matters affecting the University. 

Mr. Cannon’s legal responsibilities in higher education have over the years included assuring compliance with laws and regulations affecting education, health care and employment; managing university litigation in all areas, e.g., fair employment, licensing disputes, medical malpractice, affirmative action conflicts, antitrust claims, business torts, student claims, etc.; providing counsel and representation on wide range of commercial transactions, e.g., tax-exempt public financing, managed care contracts, online program management contracts, health care joint ventures, patent and other intellectual property licenses emerging from university lab discoveries, construction contracts, etc.; developing internal policies in areas relating to faculty compensation, Title IX controversies, scientific misconduct, research conflict of interest, personnel grievances, etc.; providing confidential counsel to the Chancellor and Board on personnel matters, and conducting extensive internal investigations related to same and to matters involving compliance with federal laws and regulations affecting research funding, clinical care and financial aid.

In the course of fulfilling his executive responsibilities at Washington University, Mr. Cannon also co-chaired the institution’s Task Force on Institutional Conflicts of Interest; chaired the University Committee on Graduate Scholarships and Fellowships; co-chaired the Board-commissioned Executive Enterprise Risk Council; chaired a key executive search committee (for the University’s CFO), and served on many more (e.g., for the Provost, the Law Dean, the Vice Chancellor for Research).  He also found time to serve on the Washington University law faculty where he taught a course in Insurance Law for 10 years, and then a 300-level undergraduate course (8 years and ongoing) on “Legal Conflict in Modern American Society” that examines what Americans litigate about, why and how they do so, and what those conflicts have to say about the underlying values and anxieties that, in ways that he posits are distinctive to the United States, citizens bring to the courts for affirmation and relief.